Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Torga_DW wrote:
The thing is, the most recent chaos codexes still had power builds. Plague marines + heldrakes were pretty brutal. What they lacked was competitive options and theme for the non-power players.

Exactly. Same thing happened with the 'Chaos' Codex that came after 3.5. It had Plague Marine/Oblit armies.

And it had Fzorgle.

 Accolade wrote:
If this latest batch of rumors are true, then it seems WHFB is contracting itself in compactly while 40k is spreading itself further and further out. I mean, how many dataslates do we have now?

21, if I counted right. And 3 WD entries - Gerantius, Looted Wagon and i think the spore pods for the tyranids but they should come in the shield of baal book as well.

That's for units. There are also some scenarios, missions, cities of death stuff and similar I couldn't be arsed to give a damn about.

There are also some forgeworld units that have their rules on downloadables, campaign books that feature a certain HQ or formation, the Imperial Armour books, various extensions such as Death from the skies, apocalypse, escalation, zone mortalis etc etc.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, but we're actively ignoring what the rulebook says about what players can field?

Riiight...

Total fething crock o gak.

Yes we are, because many other people actively ignore to the point where it isn't feasible. It can be real hard to find people who will play unbound, even with friends.

Even then unbound would only do an ok to only just adequate job of representing the non-cult/non-Black Legion traitor warbands since it doesn't grant you the special rules to represent certain forces (infiltrate for Alpha Legion, Night Vision/Fear no matter how useless they are for Night Lords) and levels of alliances still apply (so Iron Warriors have to stay 12" away from their Basilisks)

And even with unbound Word Bearers wouldn't be anything special besides Dark Red Evil Ultramarines -1 with lots of Daemons and Dark Apostles, something you can do without Unbound (since you can spam Dark Apostles with a 100 point Cultist tax)

EDIT: Also it's kind of embarrassing for IW players when IF are better siege masters than they are...

I'll be happy that White Dwarf is getting rules added to it like the old days, but not at the expense of the actual contents of the codex. Now obviously, it has happened before, but not for units that have been a part of every codex they have ever been in, to my knowledge at least. Separate Dataslates would be even worse.

It does seem awfully salt worthy to me.

 Pilau Rice wrote:
I'll be happy that White Dwarf is getting rules added to it like the old days, but not at the expense of the actual contents of the codex. Now obviously, it has happened before, but not for units that have been a part of every codex they have ever been in, to my knowledge at least. Separate Dataslates would be even worse.

It does seem awfully salt worthy to me.

Well, the SM codex lost Legion of the Damned, IG lost stormtroopers, Orks lost looted wagons, Tyranids lost their drop pods. So there are cases where old units got pushed out of the codex in order to sell more books.

The SM codex has LoTD and IG still have Stormtroopers (just renamed), though both units also got their own separate dataslate/codex.

However you are correct with the other two (and since they are fairly recent it makes this rumor just a little less salty...)

 Kosake wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:
I'll be happy that White Dwarf is getting rules added to it like the old days, but not at the expense of the actual contents of the codex. Now obviously, it has happened before, but not for units that have been a part of every codex they have ever been in, to my knowledge at least. Separate Dataslates would be even worse.

It does seem awfully salt worthy to me.

Well, the SM codex lost Legion of the Damned, IG lost stormtroopers, Orks lost looted wagons, Tyranids lost their drop pods. So there are cases where old units got pushed out of the codex in order to sell more books.

Tyranids didn't always have drop pods though did they(?) whereas Chaos have always had Cult troops or the ability to make Cult Troops.

And like I said, to my knowledge, so pardon my ignorance

It totally sucks if they decide to take the flavour of the dark gods out of the codex, when they should be cramming more of it into it. In my oppinion almost all units should be able to take some form of mark-thingie, which doesn't have to alter the game completely.

Chaos needs support, not cuts. Shape up, GW!

The dream would instead be "Codex:Tratoris" jampacked with cultists, traitor guard (Astra Militarum Tratoris Extremis?), marines, heretechs and what have you!

Then I would give up my current start of a Tyranids force and jump on the ruinous band wagon.

Sorry for the wishlisting.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, but we're actively ignoring what the rulebook says about what players can field?

Riiight...

Total fething crock o gak.

Unbound is not an excuse to remove options from Codexes. Lots of people don't play unbound. The fact of the matter is, 3.5ed Chaos was much much better at representing the legions (even with unbound in consideration). The power was a bit wonky but it's clear that H.B.M.C isn't after the power, but the representation. I mean I really don't know how people are reading otherwise.

Do you even play chaos now? Their codex is bland even before you take out the choices you'll never use because they're crap.

GW doesn't need to specifically do the Cults. What they need to do are the LEGIONS, which incidentally would cover the Cults. Every single Chaos Space Marines player I know of wants a Chaos Space Marines codex that supports the Chaos Space Marine LEGIONS, and yet, time and time again, GW gives them NOT what they want. I have to say "them" and "they" rather than "me" and "us", as I gave up years ago and got rid of my Chaos Space Marines. Chaos Space Marine LEGIONS would surely draw me back in, but does GW have a big enough crowbar to pry its head out of its own butt, such that they actually would do Chaos Space Marine LEGIONS? Who knows? There are a staggering number of kits to be released in support of such an effort. Somebody just needs to put the plan together and pull the trigger on it. I don't think it too presumptuous to say that we ALL want Chaos Space Marine LEGION models that look as awesome as the Chosen models from Dark Vengeance starter set, but will we ever get LEGION rules again, and so also get model support for them? Maybe the reason we haven't seen the release of certain model kits for Chaos Space Marines (such as Havocs) is because GW is in the process of revamping them to be of similar quality to the Dark Vengeance starter set minis. If that were the case my shopping list would be rather sizable, but I am not very optimistic at this point.

I could appreciate giving the chaos marine book legion traits a la 3.5 or the 6th edition marine book. I couldn't even begin on suggestions, but something that reflects the fluff without being overpowered.

So, no white scars level traits :p

This rumor from Steve the Warboss is probably not true. Darnok has posted this a few hours ago on Warseer:

Chaos Space Marines in the pipeline
Originally Posted by Steve the Warboss
Regarding Codex Chaos Space Marines
-No Cult Marines in the Codex
-Few Rule changes
-Dataslates for Cult Marines, Terminators, Chosen ect. in White Dwarf
-One Chaos God per Issue (each with their own dataslates for Berzerker Termis, Plague Termis ect.)

I first came across this on Dakka², and I guess it originated from Faeit.

So far I only have heard about a CSM supplement in March. Maybe some more details will surface over the next weeks.

So, either a Campaign Supplement like Leviathan/Exterminatus or a Codex CSM: Supplement like Black Legion or Crimson Slaughter. Release order in spring should be Necrons -> Harlequin models -> CSM Supplement.


The following is not a rumor. Maybe they do a Harlequin - CSM campaign supplement like Tyranids+BA. Would allow for a convenient implementation of new unit rules for both factions.

Long ago I used to have a sizable Khorne and Slannesh army, but after several editions of watered down blandness, I gave up my old chaos army. The rules wouldn't allow me field the armies I used to.
I had a really cool converted noise marine dread with a lady on top on a throne.

Now Chaos is just a bunch of bland traitors without millennia of history or the new toys of the recently turned.

(This DD guy doesn't know much about chaos...or unbound.)

2nd ed Chaos was the best. That was a mighty book, thicker than all the other codicies of the time. I think it created modern chaos, prior to that the idea of plague marines and khorne berserkers weren't well defined, and all the special characters like Abaddon and Karn were created. And if that wasn't enough, there were more army lists for daemon world armies, chaos cultists and beast men in the back. And then if you flick to the last page, they've crammed in Cypher and the fallen Angels.

Everything after that was diluted and the power levels all over the place. 2nd was when it was fun and the writers clearly threw everything into it. GW wouldn't do that now. That book is three codicies and a dozen dataslates/DLC in current GW practice.

The 2nd ed book was really good. The best they could do would be to leave their +1 T, +1 Ini, +1 inv etc concept behind and give each unit something interesting and helpful instead. Like a low-point cost skyfire for Slannesh Havocs, Split-fire for Slannesh Oblits and other rules that makes those sensible options. Another way could be lower costs for marks, but they give bonus+malus instead of only the bonus to prevent the point cost explosion on units

 Bonesnapper wrote:
It totally sucks if they decide to take the flavour of the dark gods out of the codex, when they should be cramming more of it into it. In my oppinion almost all units should be able to take some form of mark-thingie, which doesn't have to alter the game completely.

Chaos needs support, not cuts. Shape up, GW!

The dream would instead be "Codex:Tratoris" jampacked with cultists, traitor guard (Astra Militarum Tratoris Extremis?), marines, heretechs and what have you!

Then I would give up my current start of a Tyranids force and jump on the ruinous band wagon.

Sorry for the wishlisting.

Huh, that sounds lovely. If they'd cram everything into it from simple traitors and separatists to demonic fanatics that would definitely be a codex to have. Sad to say, the tendency is not to expand but to reduce the volumes, since you sell more dataslates and stuff that way.

If the codex doesn't contain the rules to play with the army I own, what incentive is there to buy it? I have an army of each chaos legion. Now they're all just black vanilla....

 ImAGeek wrote:
The fact that I could believe this rumour really shows how far GW have fallen.

Geek, you took the words out of my mouth.

I doubt GW would cut cults from the codex. It's too much of an identifying part of the army. The most I could see them doing is simply locking them in as elites requiring the dataslate to build the army where they're troops; that'd be consistent with GWs push to force us to play the most generic version of the army.

Devils advocate: a dataslate approach to each cult allows GW to organize the core chaos rules more consistently with other codices while expanding the cults into self contained sections allow them to add to those distinctive flavors without worrying about how players might mix-and-match different cult units to their own advantage. Could GW have just done four pages for each cult within the codex?-Yes, but you have to consider the degree these rules potentially and fundamentally alter respective units, more so if it goes beyond just individual units by also brings in enough army wide rules; between units and armywide rules you have something more involved than C:SM's chapter tactics and that may well justify a dataslate.

If this is true then I really hope they split it up because there would have been too much content for 1 codex otherwise. For example the main codex now contains all dataslates + most of black legion and crimson slaughter + undivided legion tactics.

And the cult dataslates/white dwarfs contain vehicle marks, special cult units, legion tactics, warlord traits, 6 psychic powers per god and some FOC stuff.

Yeah I would rather have this in 1 codex, even if I had to pay more for it. But if there is enough (good and cool) stuff in the dataslates and the main codex is not just the current one minus cult stuff. Then it might not be that bad.

Man from what I remember the IW spam armies weren't even that bad, it was the double Siren bike prince armies that sauntered up to your troops (because you couldn't shoot or charge them) and vomited Daemonettes (that could charge the turn they showed up) into your lines that were the real issue.

That being said, I liked the flavor of the 3.5 dex, and would welcome it back with a few tweaks.

I figure we will not lose much, in the end.
I suppose it was only a matter of time that we may have to buy rules "by the unit".
This plays into the problem of if they describe a unit in a Codex before they have a model released, a competitor can make one and sell it.
Then GW could be afoul of IP "copying" because someone else made the model first.
Make the model, send with it "temporary rules" in the box, release a dataslate of the new hotness, make money.

Makes sense? This seems like the most logical approach.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:


EDIT: Also it's kind of embarrassing for IW players when IF are better siege masters than they are...

Isn't that the reason they turned traitor

nobody wrote:
Man from what I remember the IW spam armies weren't even that bad, it was the double Siren bike prince armies that sauntered up to your troops (because you couldn't shoot or charge them) and vomited Daemonettes (that could charge the turn they showed up) into your lines that were the real issue.

That being said, I liked the flavor of the 3.5 dex, and would welcome it back with a few tweaks.

I would honestly hate a return to the 3.5 'dex myself...

I know everyone loves to trumpet the idea about all the flavour it added, especially for Legions, but overall it was overall incredibly restrictive, especially for mono players.
For example, Khorne had 0 access to Havocs. Sure World Eaters aren't known for their big guns and sitting back, but it never made any sense at all that World Eaters or even just Khornate armies in general could never take a marked unit of Havocs tooled out with Meltas and/or Flamers. Nor did it make sense that every single Tzeentch-marked Marine was automatically a Rubric Marine, or that only Word Bearers could take Dark Apostles, while Cultists were limited strictly to Alpha Legion only, etc, etc...

The current Codex may lack the more niche elements such as Cult Termies and God-specific upgrades for units A/B/C, but overall, there's a million times more flexibility for representing and playing Legion-based armies.

Khorne and Nurgle terminators huh. Either someone is trolling CSM players bad or they only saw the Forgeworld pieces.

I disagree on restrictiveness being a problem. I felt you got enough rewards that it gave you a bonus for limiting your playstyle/options, while you could always play vanilla if you wanted mostly cult troops and vanillas to fill the gap. Restriction actually allows you to do more interesting things, since you can have pieces that would be broken in a combo, except they don't have access to the generic combo.

While the marks vs. cult troops argument can be made, the counter to that is that unmarked doesn't mean no alignment but no dedication (which is roughly what cults currently mean), and I don't honestly think that stripping obliterators of T5 and giving them access to marks changes the game much.

Regarding dark apostles, actually, yeah. They were the only ones who had them (in the fluff) so it makes sense that they'd be the only one with rules for them. Cultists were mostly modified into the Lost and the Damned list, and I think most other options fell under the dark apostle mode.


Vanilla with more options to attempt to represent anything is far less effective and interesting in my opinion than fewer options and balanced sub-lists that don't dump all over things being unique.

They wont cut them form the codex just till they update it rules only in wd or data slate that's my guess.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Long ago I used to have a sizable Khorne and Slannesh army, but after several editions of watered down blandness, I gave up my old chaos army. The rules wouldn't allow me field the armies I used to.
I had a really cool converted noise marine dread with a lady on top on a throne.

Now Chaos is just a bunch of bland traitors without millennia of history or the new toys of the recently turned.

(This DD guy doesn't know much about chaos...or unbound.)

Yeah they got worse and worse, lost more and more and now are pathetic and little different from vanilla marines.
No thank you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And, what, you'll think they'll let you add 'em back in with Marks?

This is 40K Chaos. They've been getting blander and blander with fewer options every damned edition since they killed the glorious 3.5 book. And to add insult to injury the one time they released a Legion-based supplement, it was for the most vanilla Chaos Legion of all!

The only thing they're going to add is pointless DLC.

Well, to be fair, its not that much of a stretch to say "No Cult Marines" means the stock marine becomes the cult marine type with the appropriate mark, effectively removing the cult marine entries. Think about it, GW has stopped with the Force Org modifications so this would be the only real way to get an all-cult army, and it would allow those cults to be be all marine types. It would also allow the lesser used cults to suddenly become useful. Who doesn't want Khorne Berzerkers on bikes or with jump packs??? This would open the market up for new chaos marine models (a basic tac squad would have bits to make all 4 styles, a basic terminator box or biker box would be the same way).

As is the case with so many of these rumors, some parts are simply misinterpreted or are dealing with incomplete info. One person notices no codex entries for khorne berzerkers or 1,000 Sons (which really should not be the defacto cult troop of Tzeentch in my opinion) and suddenly that means cult troops are removed.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, but we're actively ignoring what the rulebook says about what players can field?

Riiight...

Total fething crock o gak.

Unbound is not an excuse to remove options from Codexes. Lots of people don't play unbound. The fact of the matter is, 3.5ed Chaos was much much better at representing the legions (even with unbound in consideration). The power was a bit wonky but it's clear that H.B.M.C isn't after the power, but the representation. I mean I really don't know how people are reading otherwise.

Do you even play chaos now? Their codex is bland even before you take out the choices you'll never use because they're crap.

Those options never should have been put into the Codex. Everybody should accept unbound - that's what the rulebook says. I still think 3.5 was crap.

If people really want the options, but not the power, just continue to play 3.5 with a big points tax. The reality of 3.5 was that people were taking undercosted units and options, and letting that be the basis of their "fluff".

I still play Chaos. Ever since 3.0. It's very good. I particularly like the AoBF - especially as it's consistently underrated for what it does.